Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 18

G. A. Campbell (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Invalid G14 speedy deletion. This disambiguation page had a primary entry and two other entries. The AfD deleted one of those entries. That still left two valid entries. Very possibly the page should now be redirected to the primary with a hatnote to the second meaning, but G14 does not apply to such cases. Deletion is not required at all, and there is no valid reason to hide the history from editors. The AFD closing admin should merely have removed the deleted entry from the page. I raised this with the deleting admin, user:Geschichte, but have had no response. SpinningSpark 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Speedy undelete, or speedy undelete and list at AfD. AfD is the place for the discussion, with its processes for attracting people interested in DAB pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• While "Gordon A. Campbell, co-founder of Chips and Technologies" certainly meets WP:DABMENTION, it's not immediately obvious whether G. A. Campbell (disambiguation) disambiguated that page as WP:G14 states if you don't often work with disambigs. This has come up here before; WP:CSD should be clarified, certainly before spewing vitriol at admins who speedy such disambigs. Also, not getting a response you like isn't at all the same as not getting a response. —Cryptic 11:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean "spewing vitriol"? I've done no such thing. I politely asked the admin to reconsider. Yes, I got a response in the form of (an apparently rhetorical) question, but that is not an actionable response. That would be either "yes you're right, I'll revert that action", or "no, you're wrong, and here is the policy reason for it". That didn't happen, it was just left hanging – so here we are at DRV. SpinningSpark 15:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is how I read the reply: it refers to WP:HATNOT (no piping) precluding your suggested alternative to two-entry DAB deletion suggested in WP:ONEOTHER, leaving only deletion as an outcome; I presume Geschichte thought that the the disambiguation page does not appear to be needed and no buts, because it's reasonable to think that there aren't some undiscovered viable entries. As a not-needed disambiguation page, it is an "Unnecessary disambiguation page", so it's subject to G14, despite not being expressly mentioned in there. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion with no other action has resulted in the deletion of a disambiguation item that should not have been deleted. Moving the whole page to G. A. Campbell without leaving a redirect would have been ok. Moving the extra item to a hat note and then removing it would have been ok (and then G14 would apply). Just deleting it is not ok and that's why G14 does not apply in this case. SpinningSpark 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete, with the option of listing at AFD. G14 is a criterion for speedy deletion, and, like all speedy deletion criteria, must be clear and unambiguous. The presence of only one item in a DAB list is clear and unambiguous evidence that the DAB is unnecessary. A DAB page is often valid when there are two entries. So undelete, and if anyone wants an AFD, AFD is thisaway. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and AFD - I think that will settle it for good! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G14 was properly followed per Cryptic's and Alalch Emis' comments above, but no problem here with a discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per my above considerations of the closer's probable rationale. No realistic scenario can be construed whereby WP:ONEOTHER deletion is avoided. Suggested alternatives (like making a bad, HATNOT-contravening, edit knowing one will revert it the next second) are merely theoretical. Admin seems to have made a "real-life" call that G14 can be connected to this deletion reason. I'm not aware of a policy norm that allows only for strict construction of WP:CSD. The deletion was reasonable and constructive. A not-needed disambiguation page, that is an "Unnecessary disambiguation page" was deleted. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently erupting volcanoes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree that there is a rough consensus and the stated reason for consensus is incorrect:

There's rough consensus that a list of this type presents NOTNEWS problems (a list of historical eruptions by year would probably be OK). I'm discounting the two "Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes" opinions because they make no arguments. (Corrected misquote of the close with altered punctuation Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC))

There were not two opinions, but six to keep the page, why does the closure and deletion only say two? Am I misunderstanding the policy for AfD consensus? @Sandstein: @Reywas92: @The High Fin Sperm Whale: @UnitedStatesian: @Mangoe: Pinging some who might be interested in the discussion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I don't see a clear consensus to delete, and I think most of the earlier voters did not see the WP:HEY changes that replaced the outdated bulleted list with an up-to-date table. Many voters had a misunderstanding of what an "active volcano" is, which is not well defined and includes volcanos that have erupted thousands of years ago, and there was blatant misuse of WP:NOTNEWS, which says we are not original reporting, news reports, or passing routine events, not that we are forbidden from compiling information that will change. Reywas92^Talk 18:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I still think the nom. was an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and thus deletion was not justified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm a little surprised at the outcome as it did seem to me that there was some consensus towards keeping some version. My objection was to simply repeating a single outside source which changes relatively frequently. I'm not going to oppose overturning though ti wouldn't be my preferred outcome. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford DRV instructions advise contacting the deleting admin before making a DRV request, so I'm not going to comment on the merits here except to note that the request seems to fail to understand either the closure or how AfD works, and that pinging specific AfD participants in a DRV raises WP:CANVASSING questions. Sandstein 21:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandstein Thanks for the information about DRV, I apologize for that omission. Can you clarify why you said there were only 2 keep votes? Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that there were "two 'Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes' opinions" not that there were "2 keep votes"... Sandstein 21:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Although no consensus was possible on this one, a delete decision was also within the range of closer discretion. The closer is entitled to discount opinions that do not offer a rationale based in policy, or offer no rationale at all. In fact, doing so is the sign of a thoughtful close.

Also, I have to agree with Sandstein that pinging only those participants who !voted keep is an outrageous piece of canvassing. Either every participant should be informed or none of them. In my view, the closer should ignore all contributions by canvassed participants in order to avoid "vote stacking" of the discussion. SpinningSpark 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: @Spinningspark: I pinged both Keep and Delete votes. I specifically pinged those who had written longer comments for and against on the talk page. I did not ping those who offered no justification for their keep or delete vote, e.g. Lugnuts, as I agree with the closer that non-justified opinions should be ignored. If you would, can you please take another look and retract the false accusation if possible. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I concede that you pinged one !delete voter. That still leaves the list heavily skewed towards keep and is therefore a canvassing issue. By your own admission you have selected people to ping based on your assessment of their contribution, not on a strictly impartial basis. SpinningSpark 22:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the record. Yes, I agree it was not an impartial or random selection, but it does not fit the description of canvassing: "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion" (emphasis added), though that does not mean it was appropriate, based on the response here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the extremely prominent "quote" of Sandstein's close here, which is so selectively quoted as to constitute a lie of omission. —Cryptic 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the quote was selective, that was not my intention. What I object to is calling out 2 keep votes and not addressing the fact that there were 4 others with actually-reasoned arguments. That is an unfair omission whether or not the close was valid. If it was not clear, I agree with discounting the 2 not-reasoned votes. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost required for a closer to highlight any opinions that have been discounted. Far better to do that than to silently ignore them. That makes the basis of the close very clear. If the closer does not highlight particular arguments or contributors then it can be assumed that they were accepted as valid rationales. SpinningSpark 07:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was proper to discount the "Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes" !votes which offered or pointed to no arguments relevant in a deletion discussion. The second such comment referred to some "updates" but it was left unclear how any specific updates pertain to deletion in this case. If this second discounted vote is not in fact (fully) discounted, we still get a rough consensus to delete centered on a NOTNEWS argument. No need to stress the role of an administrator's discretion, as this was a very clean and easy to understand result (obvious rough consensus, while being rough, is still consensus). Talking here about how NOTNEWS relates to volcanoes is borderline relitigating. AfD participants thought it to be the controlling policy and this view is not something DRV can negate (one participant says "blatant misuse" but I don't see how it could be anything near that). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was a clear consensus against allowing an article defined by "current". A few people suggested an article for active in 2021. I think a better idea is List of active volcanoes, and make a sortable table, including sortable by date of last eruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Yes, this seems like a consensus that an article defined by "current" is unwanted and the keep arguments did not really address the problems why e.g the maintenance burden of keeping it up-to-date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the way forward here is to write another article, possibly using this one as a starting point. Most of the commenters on both sides expressed support for either a list of active volcanoes (a commonly used term) or a list of eruptions by year, and nobody presented an argument against that. Hut 8.5 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. That sounds like a great solution. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I worry a little about the inclusion criteria for the former thing - I don't think that all reliable sources use the same definition of the word "active volcano". IMO the per-year articles are more like a PITA and I find a list of volcanoes by eruption in a given year to be largely useless, but that's it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there is clear consensus that the title List of currently erupting volcanoes should not be an article, both the vote count and the strength of argument (primarily WP:NOTNEWS) are against it. I don't see a consensus that List of active volcanoes couldn't be created -- but the close doesn't advise against that either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I was about to say Weak Endorse, because the closer weighed the strength of policy arguments correctly when there was no consensus. Then I saw the canvassing. This is a messed-up DRV, and we can leave the close alone. The AFD does not prevent creating a list of active volcanoes either in article space or by submitting a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid interpretation of consensus. Also fails WP:LC item 9. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and a very good close, primarily on the strength of argument. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and change the title to List of active volcanos. I think it's perhaps a little absurd to delete an article because the title was misworded, and I see no obviousconsensus tha it would be necessarily deleted uder the improved title. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

It seems that it would not be the same article however. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]